Both Ancap and Ancom reject the state, which means the state would not exist to either exploit or protect the individual. Anarcho-capitalism ("Ancap") is superior to Anarcho-communism ("Ancom") because Ancap recognizes one's right to private property. This right is imperative at establishing a society that both embraces freedom while seeking to limit conflict as fairly as possible.

Property is meant to establish ownership over scarce goods. If there is one orange but both Pro and myself want to eat the orange, how should this be resolved? By acknowledging property rights, society establishes criteria for ownership that protects people's efforts when they labor to collect or improve a resource. So for example if I planted the orange tree, collected the orange, traded for the orange, or the orange was given to me, property rights allows that to be recognized as "my" orange without conflict.

"The individual's desire for private property, his drive to better himself, to specialize, to accumulate profits and income, are reviled by all branches of communism" [1]. However individuals should be free to seek these things to better themselves and their environment. Ancap allows for this; ancom does not. Ancap also allows people to live on communes and share things with each other communally in a way that values social justice or equality like communism does. However Ancap doesn't impose these things by force or against the individual's will, whereas Ancom stifles personal preference.

Ancom limits one's ability to withdraw to their private property or have their property rights be respected. Instead society would be radically democratic, and people's freedoms and possessions would be dictated by tyranny of the majority [2]. The interests of the group or those with most power ("might makes right") would take precedence over righteousness and protecting the rights of the smallest minority: the individual.

Ancap provides individuals the freedom to prioritize their preferences without encroachment or aggression. It recognizes that people have different strengths, skills, desires, customs and goals, thus should be free to live according to their value system as easily as possible. On the other hand Ancom seeks to impose a societal value of upholding the (alleged) collective good above all, which is just as tyrannical as the state dictating oppressive values on the individual.

You have said without private property that there would be conflict and aggression. This is where the non-aggression principle comes in. Yes you have no property, but the taking of say that orange, if you needed it would be immoral, unethical and the lack of the sustinance would be harmful, and could be taken as a sign of aggression, and the one taking it could expect a harsh rebuttal. In an Ancap community one person could take all of the orange trees, and seeds and only sell it at a high price, no one could take oranges or seeds without tresspassing on the property. Then you would have a monopoly on the oranges. Now let me ask which is worse, someone stealing an orange, or if you couldn't afford it, no orange at all.

"The non-aggression principle (NAP) is an ethical and moral principle that forbids actions that are inconsistent with libertarian views of property rights and other rights" [1]. As you can see, the NAP embraces property rights therefore property rights are to be valued according to Pro's own logic and moral standard. The NAP conception of aggression is dependent on and closely linked to a particular conception of property rights, since aggression in this context is defined by what a person's property rights are [2].

Pro claims that if someone takes something when they do not need it, it would be considered aggressive if someone else needed it. However what if myself nor Pro needed an orange but both wanted an orange, and what if Pro was the one who planted the orange tree, took care of it and picked the orange -- wouldn't it belong to Pro?

Aggression is defined as infringement against one's person or property. Therefore property rights must first be established (and recognized) for something to qualify as aggressive in the physical sense. As such, not providing for someone in need does not necessarily qualify as aggression. It is only aggression if you take their things. If I choose not to share, I am not proactively harming another; I am simply choosing not to help. However my actions aren't causing anyone harm, they are simply not alleviating harm. Suppose Pro was starving and I chose not to feed him. This isn't aggressive because Pro would still be starving if I wasn't around. It's not me that's causing his pain; again I'm simply not alleviating it. It's arguably immoral but it's not aggressive.

Pro claims that in an Ancap society, one person could "take all the orange trees" and have a monopoly on oranges because they would be sold at a high price. However this is nonsensical. If someone buys an orange, they now have the opportunity to plant the seeds from that orange, and grow their own orange trees. This would lead to more oranges produced, driving the cost of oranges down (since there will be greater supply) meaning oranges will be more available to all.

Free market capitalism protects against monopolies because it allows competitors to enter the industry. Monopolies are mostly the result of state sanctioned barriers of entry to the market. So called "natural" monopolies are practically non-existent [3].

Ancom relies on direct democracy (tyranny of the majority) and collective ownership which is problematic. Common property resources tend to be particularly susceptible to depletion and degredation. This creates problems for sustainable development and for resource stewardship in general, since many of the key global resources are common property [4]. This is called the Tragedy of the Commons [5]. Whenever a distribution system malfunctions, we should be on the lookout for some sort of commons and there are lots of examples to choose from. The premise is simple: private property provides an incentive to protect resources.

[*Reason for removal*] Unless the debater in question forfeited half or more of their rounds, voters are not allowed to award conduct-only votes. The voter must at least assess arguments as part of the RFD, even if they don't wish to award argument points.
************************************************************************

Reasons for voting decision: Wow. Such forfeit. So lack of arguments. Much education. ... Pro's case in summary seems to be "which is worse, someone stealing an orange, or if you couldn't afford it, no orange at all." Whereas I can not fit a proper summary of con's into this, but a single line which deals with pro's case "Free market capitalism protects against monopolies because it allows competitors to enter the industry. Monopolies are mostly the result of state sanctioned barriers of entry to the market. So called 'natural' monopolies are practically non-existent." There was not a debate here, just a schooling (which pro's R1 implies was the point, him working on a school project). Sources of course for con's tireless work in citing everything, even things pro should have cited (but failed to even line up the dots for) such as the non-aggression principle, which in con's hands made sense, in pro's hands it was grasping at straws without explaining why it helped his argument.

You are not eligible to vote on this debate

This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.